You know that box on your tax form that tries to get you to give $3 to
federal elections? Checking it, says the form, sends your tax dollars
to politicians running for president. Doing so doesn't mean that you will
pay more. Do it in the public interest, we are instructed.

The system was adopted in the early 1970s, and initially the numbers
checking the box were quite high. But people are no longer buying it.
In fact, nearly 9 in 10 don't buy it. The figures for 1998 tax returns
show that only 11.3 per cent of filers checked the box. This is down from
29 per cent in the early 1980s.

This is a strong vote of no confidence in the political system -- not
just the politicians who want to use the money, but also the apparatus
of government they inhabit. Give the people an ever-so-slight window of
opportunity to secede and they will take it. Even when it is only a symbolic
measure like the tax check-off, people use it to send a message.

If the early 1980s were a time when pundits say we didn't trust government,
what does this say about us now? If 70 per cent didn't trust the government
in 1980, 90 per cent don't now. It's no wonder the federal government
tries to close every possible window to letting the people speak with
their own tax dollars.

The news is very bad for the holy cause of publicly financed elections.
Consider this text from a 1991 public service ad put out by the feds:

On your federal income tax form, there's a question about financing
presidential elections. Do you want one of your tax dollars to pay for
presidential campaigns? It won't change your tax or reduce your refund.
The tax check-off decreases candidates' reliance on large contributions
from individuals and groups.

At minimum, the refusal of people to check the box says that the movement's
populist garb is a fraud. Given a costless opportunity to make their preferences
known, 9 in 10 tell these reformers to take a flying leap.

It's clear, then, that the proponents of the check-off system have explicitly
seen it as a referendum on publicly financed elections, a means for reducing
the supposedly corrupt role of private money in politics. People have
had the chance to weigh in on the question, and it has proven to be wildly
unpopular. Given the evidence, isn't it time proponents throw in the towel?
The left has this odd view that all private money is tainted and only
public money is free of sin. In fact, public financing is the surest way
to lock up the system and protect it from dissenting outsiders. Public
financing secures elections as a means for only people who love the status
quo to participate. The hysteria over Buchanan's announcement for president
was partly caused by the idea that someone who doesn't support the system
could get matching funds.

Moreover, the real problem with campaign finance is not that there is
too much private money involved. The problem is that the stakes are too
high. Government has too much money to give away and too many favors to
pass out. If the office of the presidency and the Congress were occupied
by people restrained by the rule of law and the Constitution, elections
might be more about the quality of the candidate instead of what H.L.
Mencken called an advance auction of stolen goods.

But the implications of the tax check-off collapse are even more dramatic.
It is encouraging evidence that a mark of our times is the nosedive in
public perceptions of government itself. Real conservatives should take
heart: these are times when liberals like Gary Wills feel they have to
write books explaining to us that government is not evil!

Too bad the federal form doesn't include any other check-off opportunities.
When President George Bush proposed adding one that would help pay for
the reduction of the national debt, it was the only good idea to emerge
from his administration. But it was greeted with hoots and howls from
the entire pro-government establishment, and denounced as an idea that
could quickly get out of hand.

Consider Michigan's experience. Its tax form includes a check-off, not
for a seedy thing like an election, but for two items whose goodness is
seemingly self evident: a fund to help abused and neglected children and
another for protection of endangered wildlife. The result: a whopping
1.4 per cent of taxpayers now check the box. The rest of the 98.6 per
cent of the public are demonstrating their vote of no-confidence that
government can or should do even these things.

For Michigan, this is also a historic low. This doesn't mean that people
don't like kids and animals and a million other nice things. During the
rest of the year, people freely give to every manner of charitable cause,
to groups that use the money efficiently and effectively. But why would
any sane person willingly give money to the government to either waste
or be used to build bigger bureaucracies to oppress us?

Currently 41 states have spending check-offs on their tax forms, most
of them instituted with the hope of demonstrating the public's support
for a range of liberal causes. The actual result is an average participation
rate of 1 per cent. No wonder government-loving liberals went nuts when
Bush proposed expanding the federal check-off system.

Tax check-offs are a bad idea if they involve new spending because there
will always be enough boneheads to check the box to give the bureaucrats
a bit more money. But insofar as they involve existing spending, these
check-offs are a great idea. Let's put foreign aid, foreign wars, welfare,
education funding, and public housing on the tax form too. Let people
have a say in exactly how their money should be spent.

Once those results are in, the next step will be to permit a box on the
tax form that simply reads as follows: Check here if you would rather
just keep your money.